What Obama still hasn't figured out about being president

[L.T. Fan]

The President directly appoints the Fed chairman which has a very large effect on monetary policy.

You are absolutely wrong. The Fed Chairman is appointed but it is a totally autonomous body. Their decisions are independent of any direction except from the directors of each district. They set and direct monetary policy.

 

[Smitty]

You are absolutely wrong. The Fed Chairman is appointed but it is a totally autonomous body. Their decisions are independent of any direction except from the directors of each district. They set and direct monetary policy.

I'm not "absolutely" wrong because I obviously didn't mean the President is the one setting the policy since I very clearly said "directly appoints" and not "directly sets policy." It's like the President appointing Supreme Court justices, though.... He's obviously going to pick someone who agrees with his policies.

It is a very large source of power that the President has direct influence over.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I'm not "absolutely" wrong because I obviously didn't mean the President is the one setting the policy since I very clearly said "directly appoints" and not "directly sets policy." It's like the President appointing Supreme Court justices, though.... He's obviously going to pick someone who agrees with his policies.

It is a very large source of power that the President has direct influence over.

If you will check history Federal Reserve Chairman will likely overlap Presidential terms. More often than not the will not be replaced for an extended period. Look at Greenspan' s tenure as an example. Generally the Chairman will eventually resign and the new one may be appointed per presidential policy choice but that Chairman will remain in place even when there is a Presidential party change. I know something about the Federal Reserve system and how it operates.

 

[Smitty]

If you will check history Federal Reserve Chairman will likely overlap Presidential terms. More often than not the will not be replaced for an extended period. Look at Greenspan' s tenure as an example. Generally the Chairman will eventually resign and the new one may be appointed per presidential policy choice but that Chairman will remain in place even when there is a Presidential party change. I know something about the Federal Reserve system and how it operates.

Yes but they are still just four year terms. Appointments were made in 2006, 2010, and now 2014 (Bernanke, Bernanke, and now Yellen).

If we are talking about Presidential power over the economy, you cannot simply say a President's impact is restricted to investor's reactions to his political policies.

In fact the Republican and Democratic similarity in monetary policy is one of the exact reasons why the Parties are in essence very similar to each other at the end of the day. That stems from the President's appointments of chairmen who continue the same monetary policies.

If you elected a man like Rand Paul president, tell me he wouldn't appoint someone radically different as the chairperson of the Fed.... then tell me the President has no impact on the economy. No, things would start changing rapidly around here.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

I think you said it better than me Plan, but those were the points I wanted to make. My thought on his effect on the DOW and markets was by the Fed bouying of the market and the stimulus stuff. Maybe he has less effect than I give him credit for, but who truly knows?

The impact on the markets is rooted more in consumer confidence rather than policy. People are "buying" or "selling" their trust and confidence in what the President says more so than what he actually controls. However, the President appoints the Fed Chair, so there is a slight correlation, but it's not always direct. Even still, Congressional policies and laws mixed with decisions made by the Fed have a much stronger influence on the economy than the President. In my opinion, the real problem is that neither Congress nor the Fed should be involved. The Fed has WAY too much autonomy without any oversight, and politicians don't have any fucking idea what it takes to keep an economy healthy. So needless to say, they either cancel each other out or fuck things up twice as quickly as they'd occur if only one of the entities had influence rather than both.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Yes but they are still just four year terms. Appointments were made in 2006, 2010, and now 2014 (Bernanke, Bernanke, and now Yellen).

If we are talking about Presidential power over the economy, you cannot simply say a President's impact is restricted to investor's reactions to his political policies.

In fact the Republican and Democratic similarity in monetary policy is one of the exact reasons why the Parties are in essence very similar to each other at the end of the day. That stems from the President's appointments of chairmen who continue the same monetary policies.

If you elected a man like Rand Paul president, tell me he wouldn't appoint someone radically different as the chairperson of the Fed.... then tell me the President has no impact on the economy. No, things would start changing rapidly around here.

To be a guy who thinks he is smarter than everybody else you say some of the stupidest shit, no fed chairman has that much power or influence all major policy is voted on by a board and the republican appointees would shut that shit down before anybody else.

The FOMC formulates the nation’s monetary policy. The voting members of the FOMC consist of the seven members of the Board of Governors (BOG), the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and presidents of four other Reserve Banks who serve on a one-year rotating basis. All Reserve Bank presidents participate in FOMC policy discussions whether or not they are voting members. The chairman of the Board of Governors chairs the FOMC meeting.

The FOMC typically meets eight times a year in Washington, D.C. At each meeting, the committee discusses the outlook for the U.S. economy and monetary policy options.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Schmitty, the chairman of the Fed is nothing more than the public voice of all 12 Federal Reserve banks. They all collectively make decisions but only have one voice: the chairman. But that person does not have any more or less authority than the other members. She counts as 1/12 of the decision making. No chairman of the Fed has any more or less power than any head of any Federal Reserve Bank.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Thank you for the last two posts. They are on target. I have decided that my 30 years of being involved with banking and Federal banking regulators would mean nothing in this discussion so I decided to just let it die. I know how it works and that's good enough for me.

 

[NoDak]

I have decided that my 30 years of being involved with banking and Federal banking regulators would mean nothing in this discussion so I decided to just let it die.

Schmitty must have read an article or something. You are clearly outclassed in this debate.

 

[Smitty]

Schmitty must have read an article or something. You are clearly outclassed in this debate.

Schmitty has read many articles and knows without question that the Fed Chairman, along with the also President-appointed Board of Governors, are very powerful people when it comes to setting monetary policy. Just because they can't do it unilaterally doesn't mean they don't have power.

Here's a brief summation.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/09/what-the-fed-chairman-really-does/2950999/

 

[Smitty]

Schmitty, the chairman of the Fed is nothing more than the public voice of all 12 Federal Reserve banks. They all collectively make decisions but only have one voice: the chairman. But that person does not have any more or less authority than the other members. She counts as 1/12 of the decision making. No chairman of the Fed has any more or less power than any head of any Federal Reserve Bank.

The other 7 members of the Board of Governors are all appointed by the President, they collaborate with the Presidents of the private banks in the Fed system to make decisions, but the Chairman is the most powerful like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most powerful of the Supreme Court Justices. At the end of the day, Presidents are appointing the majority of the people making these decisions.

Huge power.

The fact that it's technically an independent body doesn't change that their decisions are in fact guided and influenced by Presidential appointments, and thus, what the President who appointed them wants. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is considered tremendously powerful due to this role.

 

[NoDak]

Schmitty has read many articles and knows without question that the Fed Chairman, along with the also President-appointed Board of Governors, are very powerful people when it comes to setting monetary policy. Just because they can't do it unilaterally doesn't mean they don't have power.

Here's a brief summation.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/09/what-the-fed-chairman-really-does/2950999/

I'll trust the guy that lived and worked in the subject matter for 30 plus years.

And speaking in 3rd person is pretty gay, Punchline.

 

[Smitty]

I'll trust the guy that lived and worked in it for 30 plus years.

And speaking in 3rd person is pretty gay, Punchline.

That's nice, now go play in the corner while the educated people talk, grunt. You have nothing to add to this discussion. At least LT and Plan9 can keep up with all the big scary words.

 

[NoDak]

I freely admit I don't know much about the topic. And from the looks of it, neither do you.

 

[Smitty]

I freely admit I don't know much about the topic. And from the looks of it, neither do you.

I know enough to have a good faith debate about it. And you wouldn't know whether I do or don't, since, uh, you know nothing about it.

 

[NoDak]

I know enough to have a good faith debate about it. And you wouldn't know whether I do or don't, since, uh, you know nothing about it.

Like I said, I'll trust the guy who's life was mostly spent working in it. Not some guy who desperately wants others to think he's some kind of mental giant.

And I didn't say I know nothing about it. I said I don't know much. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit I'm not some kind of subject matter sooper genius, as you try to be on pretty much any topic ever brought up.

Punch. Line.

 

[Cotton]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

[L.T. Fan]

Schmitty has read many articles and knows without question that the Fed Chairman, along with the also President-appointed Board of Governors, are very powerful people when it comes to setting monetary policy. Just because they can't do it unilaterally doesn't mean they don't have power.

Here's a brief summation.... http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/09/what-the-fed-chairman-really-does/2950999/

The article clearly points out how the various bodies are put in place by different sources and this is what makes them autonamous. The President has no control over any of these bodies therefore his views about monetary policy are irrelevant. I believe this is where this discussion began.

 

[Smitty]

Like I said, I'll trust the guy who's life was mostly spent working in it.

And like I said, that's nice, now go sit in the corner while the grownups talk.

I have something to say to people who know what they are talking about like LT or Plan9. You? Not so much. Your main function here is to name-call and be a douche.

 

[Smitty]

The article clearly points out how the various bodies are put in place by different sources and this is what makes them automamous. The President has no control over any of these bodies therefore his views about monetary policy are irrelevant. I believe this is where this discussion began.

I never said the President has control over those bodies. In fact, after you said "The President has no direct control over them" I said "But he does appoint the Chair [and the Board of Governors]."

This is a source of power even if he can't directly control them. Again, it's like the Supreme Court in a way. Many Presidents have appointed Justices who then turn out completely different than the President wanted when he appointed them, but it's still generally considered a very powerful position and a huge source of power for the President to be able to appoint them.

You then said I am "absolutely wrong" which, no, I'm not. I would be wrong if I said the President directly controls the policy, but I didn't say that. He does appoint the majority of the decision makers, and even if they span multiple presidencies, the ability to pick those people is perhaps one of the most important things a President does.

Would you not agree that our monetary policy is nearly as important, if not more important, as a regime's political policy?